Search

Background and Aims: Regorafenib has demonstrated its survival benefit for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) patients in a phase III clinical trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of regorafenib and the predictors of treatment outcomes in Taiwanese patients. Methods: We analyzed the survival, best overall response, predictors of treatment outcomes, and safety for uHCC patients who had tumor progression on sorafenib therapy and received regorafenib as salvage therapy between March 2018 and November 2020. Results: Eighty‐six patients with uHCC were enrolled (median age, 66.5 years; 76.7% male). The median regorafenib treatment duration was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6–4.6). The most frequently reported adverse events were hand‐foot skin reaction (44.2%), diarrhea (36.0%), and fatigue (29.1%). No unpredictable toxicity was observed during treatment. The median overall survival (OS) with regorafenib was 12.4 months (95% CI, 7.8–17.0) and the median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.7–4.7). Of 82 patients with regorafenib responses assessable, 4 patients (4.9%) achieved a partial response, and 33 (40.2%) had stable disease, leading to a disease control rate (DCR) of 45.1% (n = 37). Patients possessing baseline AFP < 400 ng/ml exhibited a markedly longer median OS, median PFS, and higher DCR compared with their counterparts (15.7 vs. 8.1 months, 4.6 vs. 3.7 months, 60.9% vs. 27.5%, respectively). Despite possessing high baseline AFP levels, patients with early AFP response (>10% reduction at 4 weeks or >20% reduction at 8 weeks after regorafenib administration) exhibited comparable treatment outcomes to those with baseline AFP < 400 ng/ml. Conclusions: The results of this real‐world study verified the tolerability and efficacy of regorafenib treatment for uHCC patients who failed prior sorafenib therapy, especially for those with lower baseline AFP levels or with early AFP response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen (HBsAg) seroreversion usually occurs during immunosuppressive therapy. The risk and factors of HBsAg seroreversion from resolved HBV infection in the general population remained unclear. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled subjects with resolved HBV infection and who had received at least two times of screening in a longitudinal community screening program. HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antibody (anti‐HBs), and hepatitis C virus antibody (anti‐HCV) were tested every time in all subjects. The primary endpoint was HBsAg seroreversion. Results: Of the 7630 subjects enrolled, 5158 (67.6%) subjects had positive anti‐HBs at baseline. HBsAg seroreversion occurred in 84 subjects during 42 815‐person‐year follow‐up with an annual incidence of 0.2% and a 10‐year cumulative risk of 1.9%. Anti‐HBV treatment‐experienced subjects had a significantly higher risk of HBsAg seroreversion than anti‐HBV treatment‐naive subjects (83/310 [26.8%] vs 1/7320 [0.01%], P < 0.001). Lower rates of positive anti‐HBs and anti‐HCV were observed in anti‐HBV treatment‐experienced subjects who developed HBsAg seroreversion. Both positive anti‐HBs (hazard ratio/95% confidence interval: 0.56/0.348–0.903, P = 0.017) and positive anti‐HCV (hazard ratio/95% confidence interval: 0.08/0.030–0.234, P < 0.001) were independent factors of HBsAg seroreversion in anti‐HBV treatment‐experienced subjects. Less than 5% of the HBsAg seroreverters had clinical hepatitis flare at HBsAg seroreversion. The HBsAg titer was low, and only transient reappeared in most of the HBsAg seroreverters. Conclusions: Subjects with resolved HBV infection were at a minimal risk of HBsAg seroreversion, unless with prior anti‐HBV treatment experience. Fortunately, even with a reappearance of HBsAg, it was transient and clinically non‐relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Hemodialysis patients are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Both HBV and HCV infections lead to risks of end‐stage liver diseases and extrahepatic manifestations. This study aimed to investigate hepatic and extrahepatic comorbidities in hemodialysis patients with HBV or HCV infections compared with those without viral hepatitis. Methods: A total of 1910 hemodialysis patients, including 159 HCV viremic patients (HCV group), 217 seropositive for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg, HBV group) and 1534 seronegative for both anti‐HCV and HBsAg (non‐B and non‐C [NBNC] group), from 23 hemodialysis centers were enrolled. Comorbidities were classified into 10 categories by the International Classification of Diseases‐10th Revision. Results: Among the 1910 patients, the mean age was 64.6 years, and 52.7% were male patients. A total of 1834 (96%) patients had at least one comorbidity, and the mean number of comorbidities was 2.9 ± 1.5 per person. The three most common comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart diseases. The mean number of comorbidities per person was significantly higher in the HCV group (3.3 ± 1.7) than in the HBV (2.7 ± 1.5, P < 0.001) and NBNC groups (2.9 ± 1.5, P = 0.004), mainly due to the higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, respiratory disorders, and mental/behavioral disorders. The HBV and NBNC groups exhibited comparable burdens of comorbidities. Conclusions: Hemodialysis patients had a high prevalence of multiple comorbidities. Hemodialysis patients with HCV exhibited a higher burden of comorbidities, especially ischemic heart diseases, respiratory disorders, and mental/behavioral disorders, than HBV and NBNC patients did. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uraemic patients undergoing haemodialysis are at high risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We aimed to evaluate the evolutionary seroprevalence of viral hepatitis and the gap in HCV care cascades in this special population by a large‐scale surveillance study in Taiwan. Uraemic patients on maintenance haemodialysis from 22 sites (FORMOSA‐LIKE group) in 2012 (n = 1,680) and 2019 (n = 2,326) were recruited for this study. The distributions and sequential changes of viral hepatitis markers were analysed. The prevalence of anti‐HCV antibody and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seropositivity was 13.6% (316/2326) and 11.5% (267/2326), respectively, in 2019 compared with 17.3% (290/1680, P =.002) and 13.6% (229/1680, P =.046), respectively, in 2012. The HCV‐viremic rate among anti‐HCV‐seropositive patients was significantly lower in 2019 than in 2012 (56.3% [178/316] vs. 73.8% [214/290], P <.001). The HCV treatment rate increased from 2.3% (5/217) in 2012 to 21.7% (49/226) in 2019 (P <.001). In the sequential analysis of the 490 patients who participated in both screens, 17 of the 55 HCV‐viremic patients became HCV RNA seronegative, including 13 by antivirals and four spontaneously. By contrast, one anti‐HCV‐seropositive but nonviremic patient became viremic, and six anti‐HCV‐seronegative patients became anti‐HCV‐seropositive in 2019. The annual incidence of new HCV was 0.2%/year. Seven HBsAg‐seropositive patients experienced HBsAg loss (1.25%/year). Two patients had new anti‐HBc seropositivity (new HBV exposure: 0.57%/year). The seroprevalence of viral hepatitis decreased in an 8‐year follow‐up but remained prevalent, and the treatment of HCV infection was underutilized in uraemic patients. Additional efforts are needed to enhance the HCV treatment uptake of uraemic patients. Clinical Trial IDs: NCT03803410, NCT01766895. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: The serial serologic changes of hepatitis D virus (HDV) infection among chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected patients who received oral nucleotide/nucleoside analogues are elusive. Methods: Serum anti‐HDV and HDV RNA among chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients were tested at the time of initiating anti‐HBV therapy and subsequently during the follow‐up period. Results: The seropositive rate of anti‐HDV and HDV RNA among 2850 CHB patients, was 2.7% and 0.9%, respectively. Factors associated with anti‐HDV seropositivity were platelet counts (odds ratio [OR]/95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.995/0.992–0.999; P = 0.006), HBV DNA levels (OR/CI: 0.81/0.70–0.94; P = 0.005), and hepatitis B e‐antigen (HBeAg) seropositivity (OR/CI: 0.22/0.05–0.95; P = 0.04). The only factor associated with HDV RNA positivity among anti‐HDV seropositive patients was age (OR/CI: 0.95/0.90–1.00; P = 0.03). The spontaneous clearance rate of serum anti‐HDV antibody was 3.0 per 100 person‐years with a median follow‐up period of 3.5 years (range 2–12 years), whereas the seroclearance rate of HDV RNA was 4.3 per 100 person‐years among anti‐HDV seropositive patients after a median follow‐up period of 6.0 years (range 2–11 years). A baseline anti‐HDV titer < 0.5 cut‐off index was the only factor predictive of anti‐HDV seroclearance (hazard ratio [HR]/CI: 30.11/3.73–242.85; P = 0.001). Conclusions: HDV infection was not common among patients treated for HBV in Taiwan. Seroclearance of anti‐HDV and HDV RNA did occur over time, albeit the chance is rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]